Russ Allbery schrieb:
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How about, after the 4.2.1 release, switch the branch to GPLv3 and then
release 4.2.3, without any functional changes, under GPLv3?
The skipped minor version number (to a .3, no less) and the quick
succession of releases would probably hint at the license upgrade, and
it would probably make the FSF happier with a GCC release under GPLv3 in
a short time-frame.
Just a GCC user, not a developer, so please weigh my opinion
appropriately, but I for one would strongly prefer that the GCC project
not use "cute" version number changes as a form of semaphore communication
to users. That's what release notes are for. Version numbers are the
most useful when they are monotonically increasing, follow a normal
arithmetic progression, and follow a consistent policy about how they
change with each release.
I personally don't care of the GPLv3 change gets a major version number
change or a minor one, but please make the first 4.3 release 4.3.0, and
please maintain the convention that the next minor release after 4.2.1 is
4.2.2. Anything else is needlessly confusing IMO and raises pointless
questions.
100% ACK!
I wouldn't care if you label the first GPLv3 version 5.0.0, as long as
it's a monotonic version number increase.
Just my 5.0.0 cents. ;-)
--
Clemens Koller
__________________________________
R&D Imaging Devices
Anagramm GmbH
Rupert-Mayer-Straße 45/1
Linhof Werksgelände
D-81379 München
Tel.089-741518-50
Fax 089-741518-19
http://www.anagramm-technology.com
